Thursday, October 29, 2015



POLITICS MAKES STRANGE BEDFELLOWS- Jeb Bush becoming the Victim of Birtherism rather than Champion of Principle?
A few weeks ago now I wrote Jeb Bush a private letter. Often times as we see with the varying Republican Campaign Managers voicing a get-together on a particular vexing problem mutually troublesome like CNBC's low balling questions to Candidates in Wednesday nights Republican Candidate Debate , Candidates even from across the isle can reach out to one another for a mutual principle aggrieved for a more bi-partisan cause and effect.
"Out of your weaknesses which troubles you the most, and how are you going about fixing it?", was in parlance one of those gotcha questions from CNBC Moderators in the debate last night meant to expose Candidates rather than Receive from their View a wisdom.
In their own defense CNBC stuck up for their Moderators stating a Candidate seeking the highest office must be able to field the toughest questions. However, it's a little distracting from a "Candidate's Debate" to embroil or overshadow a debate with the Moderators opinion.
We've yet to see for instance Hillary Clinton asked, " Since you abandoned the cries for help of 4 people in Benghazi who we're murdered, why should Americans not think you'd do the same for them?"
That question would parallel the one asked to Rubio ,(again parlanced), "Since you have failed in your own finances so miserably, Why should America trust you with a Multiple Trillion dollar budget?" , as if the Office of the President was entirely responsible and Congress had no say in it.
It is of course true, Candidates for President are indeed subject to Leadership Questions and all their character flaws are subjects of exposure. Its a lot like being paraded out naked with only a podium to stand behind.
The objectivity of the questions being whose left without blemish, or perhaps even a "now you know how she feels" in a pay-back of a Moderators particular favorite. While not unreasonable, it is very uncomfortable standing naked in the cold for anyone.
Candidates with high expectations have a double edge sword of trouble to face. That sword comes swiftly from opponents at and in Debate as well as the wealthiest contributors of the GOP who have ponied up over 100 Million Dollars so far for say a Candidate like Jeb Bush.
How would you like to be former Gov. Jeb Bush very close to the bottom in losing debates facing your 100 Million Dollars of Contributors this morning?
In multiple Polls "Conservative Drudge" "Liberal CNBC" both showed Bush in lower single digits far below ineligible Candidates Cruz and Rubio thought by Bush early on to be freshman gnats to be swatted away with the Sledge of Fundraising prowess.
In an article featuring a big dose of "forget your Principles forget about Winning" entitled "The decline of Jeb Bush explained"- by Andrew Prokop , it was stated: this jewel came shining through:

"That's why the very small polling bump for Marco Rubio, not the soaring numbers of Trump and Carson, is Bush's biggest threat."

Poll used in Vox Article
The article looks to explain or understand Jeb's sinking ship with Donald Trump's entry into the race, the lack of GOP Grassroots within Bush's Campaign and his reliance on Big Money Donors, but still grasps rather than relates understanding:

[As grim as things are for Bush, he remains effectively even with Rubio in Polls, drawing support in the high single digits both nationally and in New Hampshire. Every other current or former elected official except Ted Cruz - a politician despised by every other politician - is even lower. So when they're all doing so badly, I'm skeptical that its' traits unique to Bush, like his gaffes or his immigration views, that are preventing him from catching fire.]



So what happened? When did the Establishment lose the Trust of the grass roots conservative movement in America? They seemed they were doing fine and indeed the Republicans have been rewarded with a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives 2010 and recently regained the U.S. Senate in 2014.

Somewhere between  2010 and 2015 the Republican Elite - Well connected and funded Money People lost track of the General Public or Grass Roots Conservative movement and there is still a lot more of the latter than the former when it comes to a long haul election campaign.

But that in-house resistance did not start in 2010 it began in 2008 with the uproar of Birtherism.

America had not had to deal with the problem for a very long time. Indeed every President of the 43 who have served is listed, at least on Wikipedia, as qualified under the Constitution's Article II., Section 1, Clause 5 requirements of being a [Citizen] at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, or a [natural born Citizen] thereafter ie. [born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents], accept Barack Obama. Only recently in 2008 was Arthur's documents discovered proving his father had not naturalized as a Citizen although this is not seen as the case on Arthur's Wiki page.

While I as a Democratic Candidate for President in 2016, am doing my best to adhere to the rules of the Democratic Party, which has promised to disqualify any Candidate from the Party's remaining Sanctioned debates who strays from the six sanctioned debates authorized by the Democratic National Committee, I am not limited to debating Private Citizens who are not authorized as Candidates and a lot can be learned from just that if America tunes in.

There have been a few more comments since writing the Post POLITICAL SCRIMMAGE ROUND-TABLE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN appeared on the REALITY CHECK RADIO Show and made the pictures above. Comments total 150 now rather than the 78.

Of all the comments the one that you really heard the Bat Crack on, might as well feature some baseball parallels with the world series going on, was the one made October 27th, 2015 at 1: 19 AM. Here it is , and I explain a little bit about why it is a home-run afterward:

[In question of how did President Washington fulfill 14 Year RESIDENCY requirement?
Noticing the difference between being a [Citizen] for 14 years verses a [Resident] for 14 years is verily clear to me.
The Residency requirement did not require that to be as a Citizen, but a Resident.
One could fulfill the “14 Year Residency” by being a [R]esident in the Geography prior to bring a Citizen at the Adoption of the Constitution and the beginning of the United States.
That is why the Constitution does NOT say and [14 years a Citizen of the United States] for the Office of President.
Now if you Notice this is very different from the Representative Requirements which in fact do say :
[seven Years a Citizen of the United States]
and also see U.S Senator
[nine Years a Citizen of the United States]
Virginia actually was the 10th State to come into the the Union, but did so in 1788 a Year after 1787 signing of the COTUS.
So again, very clearly, the Office the President did not require a [14 year prior Citizenship] but clearly states [14 years a Resident within the United States]
And The first [Citizen] (s) were Adopted at the signing of the Constitution. We all agree Obama was not there.
[Citizen] was the requirement, because they ALL KNEW, (what many here have failed to either understand, or just blatantly want to stay or be ignorant about), there was no [ natural born Citizens]
Natural born Citizen required Birth in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.
Those first generation Adopted U.S. Citizens had children who were the [natural born Citizens] qualified for the Office of President.
It’s the [Supreme Law of the Land] , not racist. It’s WE THE PEOPLE’S [w]ill by Legislative Mandate, not a whipple of any particular minority.]

The INTENT of our Founders is made very bold in this comment and it stands very solid in debilitating the argument made against the unique qualifications for the Office of the President. One usually does not think about heading to the Resident Requirement for the Office of the President in contrast to the Citizenship requirement for U.S. Representatives or U.S. Senator and I'd almost bet that many politicians haven't done or recognized this profound difference.

What does it do? Well, the argument that 'natural born Citizen' and 'Citizen' is synonymous or mean the same thing is the equivalent of the oppositions argument. They would like to make these terms interchangeable like the words "Equal" or "Sum", but that is not the case.

[Natural born Citizen] is very unique. If you follow the debate on the link what you'll see is that those opposing the (born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) like to say that there were natural born Citizens of the United States even prior to the signing of the U.S. Constitution. If they can eliminate the fact that there was not a [natural born Citizen] in the U.S., because no one had been born in the U.S. to Citizen Parent, they in affect neutralize the unique clause of the qualification for the Office of the President by diluting it to "Citizen".

Of course this is plainly not the case or , the [Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution] would not have needed to be implemented at all. The Founders knew there had been many people who had been born in the geography of the New America since  Columbus as he set foot in the Bahamas on October 11 1492 and moved his way up the New Continent.

To say there were not generations of people who were born on this new Continent by those who settled there is of course a denial of around 300 years, however unique to the formation of the United States is the American Nation formed by the United States of America. This is when the jurisdiction of and under of the U.S. Constitution began.

This is why the Founders of the U.S. Constitution stated they were effectively 'Adopted' Citizens in the statement of the President's Qualifications, [Or a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution].

This gives a Time Frame of which "Citizens" first were considered such under the Jurisdiction of the new Supreme Law of the Land.

The continuation and continuity of that jurisdiction is understood in the phrase "natural born Citizen" which eliminated any foreign allegiance by birth or inheritance from mother or father. If a foreign birth or inheritance of a foreign citizenship or subject is known in an individual that does not preclude them from being a Citizen, but it does preclude them from being a [natural born Citizen] qualified for the Office of the President and even Vice President.

So in answering the question, "How did the early Founders consider themselves eligible for President under the Constitution's requirement of a 14 year Residency, we see they did that easily by not including the word Citizen but including the word RESIDENT only in the Office of the President.

The residency consideration being in the New America. This plainly enforces and substantiates that [natural born Citizens] did not exist prior to the U.S. Constitution and leaves us with an understanding that those fighting in the Revolution, even if they were born to parents who had immigrated to the new America did not consider themselves [natural born Citizens] and were in need of being Adopted under authority of the new U.S. Constitution as Citizens.

The 14 or so total comments total made in the Discussion are all valuable in their rebuttals and assertions of intelligence in the debate format that was being considered and are better reserved in context than simply listed here, but I'll go ahead and list them for convenience and for reference in a shorter format because wading through 135 other comments many that simply related great insult might not be your cup of tea.

I'll leave those at the bottom of this Post.


SO , How is former Florida Jeb Bush, absent from Governing and Political Office for the last 8 years, suddenly responsible for carrying the weight of the ESTABLISHMENT for the anti-establishment's wrath? 

That is really a $100 Million Dollar Question! The answer is quite simply that instead of being his own man, Jeb Bush didn't stand up for Principle in the Constitution's demand for a [natural born Citizen] which would have most certainly garnered what is estimated to be 50% of Trump's base support, by at the very least taking a stand against Rubio as an ineligible Candidate for the Office of the President. 

Jeb Bush is Jeb Bush's worst weakness because he's acting like a Pirate of the Principles established in and under our U.S. Constitution and by doing so he has allowed Rubio and Cruz under his blanket and they have like leaches sucked out the grass roots blood from his Campaign and are prepared to leave him for dead.

Of course Gov. Jeb Bush at the beginning of this Campaign never expected to be really challenged in the Campaign as he went for the money rather then Constitutional  principles.  A few television shows and speeches is really all Mr. Donald Trump needed to separate himself from the 'Establishment' word. He did that on The View, and everyone remembered.

 Trump never filed a single paper in Court against Obama, and never gave $1 dollar of support to any Candidate for President who had standing and had filed in Court against Obama or McCain. Mr. Trump certainly hasn't filed a single paper in Court against Rubio, Cruz, or Jindal... ,and it may come back to be the worst mistake of his Political Career if Jeb Bush decided to.

Mr. Trump would be labeled the Fraud Birther and Mr. Bush would be labeled the Man who stood up for Principle instead of pirating it. Less than 100 days now exist before the Iowa Caucus and a 100 MILLION DOLLAR MAN ESTABLISHMENT MAN , is being shuffled off for a dead-on-arrival Iowa Caucus, while he has merrily merrily merrily merrily thought the Office of the President was available to any Dreamers.

Being angry is a secondary emotion, first comes hurt. Americans have been hurt by Obama's illegal occupancy of the White House. They have turned angry by Congress or shall we say any elected official using their bully pulpit to move Congress for Hearings on Obama's ineligibility due by the inherited citizenship of Kenya his father passed to Obama. People want to respect his mother's citizenship in the U.S. , but they want to disrespect Obama's father's Kenya Citizenship that Obama received at birth by Obama's own word and released long form birth certificate.

People want to assume Senator Cruz born outside the U.S. is qualified by his mother's U.S. Citizenship, if she didn't adopt a Canadian Citizenship like her husband did from Cuba to Canada. That is a respect of one parent's Citizenship and a disrespect for the other as equal in a child's inheritance.

It's U.S. Senator Marco Rubio's inheritance from Parents that at the time of his birth made him a first generation American by birth under the 14th Amendment's naturalization principles. Marco Rubio is what many Americans refer to as an Anchor Baby. That does not disqualify him from being a U.S. Senator as he was born here in America receiving his Citizenship jus soli or from the soil, understood under the 14th Amendment- " All those born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States, and the State wherein they reside." 

Clearly the 14th Amendment was not meant to intro-cede or void the qualifications of the Office of the President's 'natural born Citizen' clause, and those born are declared [Citizens], not ['natural born Citizens.']  

Because neither Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio are [natural born Citizens] ie. born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents- they are not eligible for the Office of President or Vice President and former Gov. Jeb Bush by not saying so has allowed the life blood line of his Campaign to be cut off with the tens of millions of dollars he has acquiesced by not taking a stand and doing what the President is suppose to even before he gets to Office of President, which is contained within the President's Oath, "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. 

As a Candidate for President we have what is referred in legal terms to be 'standing' that no one else in America or in any other elected position has. That burden is a heavy one to bear even within one's one political party. I myself filed against both McCain and Obama in 2008 and 2012 making my LEGAL OBJECTIONS known and well understood. No other person has standing, and that is why it is such a heavy obligation to the Constitution immediately upon declaring for President. 

Now if I was part of the $100 Million Dollar Club of Gov. Jeb Bush's, and I understood this, don't you think I would be calling him giving him a piece of my mind? I'd be saying Gov. Bush, you have STANDING! That is a responsibility and a duty to running for Office that I am not legally authorized to take. I support you because I have faith that you would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. If you can't do that, everything else I have invested in America is going to out in the manure spreader and I am really thinking you are not taking the job as a Candidate serious. 

Then I'd probably say something like , you know that Mr. Cody Robert Judy had the courage to take a stand for the Constitution even against the powerful McCain and Obama Camps that were loaded for bear, and he was a nobody. Why don't you Gov. Bush have more courage than that no-body for our Constitution? Maybe if you did you wouldn't have put a tourniquet on the life blood source we call the grass roots of a Campaign and let Rubio and Cruz suck the life out of you after I contributed $100 MILLION DOLLARS to you! 

Then I'd tell him he had about 5 days to change his mind about the U.S. Constitution and start acting like a President instead of just getting his picture taken. Now I don't expect Gov. Jeb Bush to do that, unless he decides to be his own man and buck the ESTABLISHMENTS bad wrap. But until he does he certainly deserves the label of being a Pirate of our U.S. Constitution's  Principle for the Office of the President. 

The Founders concerns, as the Judicial Committee's considerations bear out when in hearing to change the natural born Citizen clause in 2000 witness that a significant change takes place in a 2nd Generation American. The "Time" is the consideration in Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. It accounts for a longer period of time and is not discriminatory as a qualification for the Office of the President any more than being 35 years or older is to younger people. 

It is my hope that all Candidates for President will take their obligations of Standing seriously and take the action within their own Parties to steer our Nation as a ship in a more true course for our Constitution realizing the great emotion born in the sacrifices of so many families to establish a land of the free and a home of the brave under the U.S. Constitution.

The greatest consideration in this is to assume for instance that if Hillary Clinton were to win her Parties Nomination, and lets say Rubio or Cruz won the GOP's Nomination and Rubio or Cruz won the General Election. Would Hillary Clinton ask for a U.S. Supreme Court Ruling making the Candidates Ineligible or even a Congressional Hearing. Will she be as gracious of a loser as Gov. Bush to Rubio or Cruz? In my opinion the answer is when the Presidency is on the line, you fight with every Constitutional Tool available and that tool would be available to her with Cruz or Rubio as a nominee. Of course the other thing you could do to make sure of is by electing me as the Democratic Party Nominee. I'd sure do it!

Help Support Cody Robert Judy's Campaign for President  Remember - Principle over Party!

Cody Robert Judy


Comment 1
@RC [Thanks again Doc. Also thanks to Brian Reilly and CRJ who called. We went past the two hour streaming limit but the discussion should be in the archive version. We had a discussion with CRJ and about his case and the definition of NBC.]
It was a real pleasure to be in that Round Table Discussion agreeing to disagree.
As I thought about it this morning I appreciated you letting me come on the show. Things like that ROUND TABLE are EPIC and the Discussion Healthy.
Like Doc said about his experience in WOBC there was one point I regretted not saying as we disagreed on “Precedent Case”
And that would have been to emphasize more the reality that the SCOTUS has not had a Discussion on “natural born Citizen” where it Counts – Between TWO PRESIDENTIAL Candidates.
Thus our Campaigns are regulated by Cases considering “Citizen” and not “natural born Citizen”
I do wish the SCOTUS had enough respect for the Constitution to understand the slight. (smile)
You, Doc,Brian, and myself really engaged in a conversation that should be had in the U.S. Supreme Court and broadcast on Prime Time. . if you just for one minute thought about the hundreds of millions of Votes and Billions of dollars that have gone into the ’08. ’12., and now ’16 Presidential Elections. . that’s an easy up.
If the SCOTUS could not be juiced up by THAT I’d have to say they are in the same condition as the majority of Certs that hit their desk .. D.O.A or Deadlisted.
On a side note:
You and Doc are so talented with your voices. I mean REALLY good! Your both amazingly articulate, distinct, and unique and PRIME TIME is missing out.
Doc’s Voice could sell Beef to Cows. Sam Elliot better watch out , because he could lose his dinner over that voice.
You RC really should be MC’n Bloomberg TV or some other high profile show , with your quick wit, intelligence, and all around savvy.
REALLY was my honor in the Discussion with you guys and with Brian Reilly (who worked on the CCP). . whose sincere desire to look for truth I took as genuine.
You know I thought this morning “America’s Got GreatTalent”
Wouldn’t it be something if the best of the best in forensics, in Congress, in Court, in Politics, got together in Principle for the Truth?
Then I thought .., “Well, that was what the great experience and experiment the USA was all about in the first place with the Freedom and Liberty to do it. ”
You know TODAY that Round Table Discussion at Prime Time would cost millions of dollars. . and the Value would be exponentially higher.
I guess we missed the Pro Salary Cap, but it was a great Scrimage.

Comment 2
@Lupin – Do you know what GroupStink is? Try that question for $500.
@RealityCheck I’m doing a write up Post about the Show and would like to Credit You properly. Could you email me your Preferences and Credits
What do you get when the LEADING OBAMA CONSPIRACY DOCTOR, REALITY CHECK RADIO , A Former COLD CASE POSSE Investigator and a Presidential Candidate with U.S. Supreme Court Cases under his belt get together on a ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION?
WELL “Shake N Bake” , THAT just Happened!
I came on with a question for Doc Conspiracy (Kevin Davidson) at the 90 Minute Mark and the Show went into two 15 Minute OVER TIMES!
Comment 3
@Rickey AND Sen Ted Cruz (?)
The punitive factor of arguing for any particular Candidate is dismissive of the Principles of Law which we ought to be engaged in.
The dislocation of that lays bear the Constitutional Cupboard
Please Excuse Dis-location
I’ve been regulated to the “moderation” board, so I’m not sure if my comments “if approved” will fall in order.
But that might be due to the sensitive info of which that paticular comment had within it. Understandable.

Comment 4
@ REALITY [I believe it was Judy who thought that the failure to respond was tantamount to a default.]
One thing I’ve learned, always ask for everything. You never know what the Court is going to be in the mood to grant. You just might catch a Judge in a mood, but if you didn’t ask, there’s no way he’s/she’s gonna suggest it., FAULT ? YOURS.
To the questions directed towards my writing style-
One thing my Dad said about not writing me much before he passed away, was because he understood how easily things could be misconstrued, or taken out of context.
It is very True. One thing I could do, actually enjoyed doing was reading what I wrote in my Lions Den Show. I can verbally, with the right and correct verbal fluctuations, make it Understandable.
I do understand the problem, and concede it with out taking any offense at all. I do work on it everyday and consider corrections more helpful than ever are meant harmful.
Again time is a wrestling factor. In my college English and Writing I had A’s and B’s nothing lower. My accumlative GPA was 3.7 in College. .and with just two classes short of 3 minors and 1 major thats a lot classes.
More people… More time.. Things get better.
As an example I wholly got a kick out of the story or scene retold By Professional reporters as the Clerk walked outside with the BIG grey box full of copies of the SCOTUS Courts decision.
As you know there’s a literal SHOPPERS GRAB scramble to get a copy, read it, and report it FIRST.
Well, as long sentences go, and varying degrees and nuances are expressed all colesing around the action and subject, these Reporters just shook their heads at reading it and reporting it wrong, and then having to sit down re read, disect, and re evaluate the findings.
I understand no one likes reading something 10 times to understand it. The more you do it though the more understanding that comes.
Many people do not like or enjoy for example reading the Bible for various reasons. I’ve read it over 100 times and continue every day picking new things up in my understanding. Jesus often spoke in parables not to be seen as a smart A$s or vague, but as a tool of assistance. He was smart enough not to deny us the privilege of ah-hah moments when that understanding would come.
I appreciate all of the good humor here in all the comments, and hope to one day have you helping in a Judy Administration with your truly wonderful talents.
I’m really excited to have gotten to know each of you a little better, and I take your expressions and comments as really caring for me deep inside. I appreciate that. I do care about each of you also and wish you well.

Comment 5
Of course the term had some roots in Frenchs esteemed scholar Vattel
codified in the then contemporary encyclopedia “The Law of Nations” (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source “Law of Nations” is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular – against piracies and felonies on high seas).
According to Chapter 19, §212 of “Law of Nations”, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”. The concept “Natural born citizen” is a twofold criterion meaning that:
Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after.
In other words, a natural born citizen means at least a second generation citizen of the country.
Of interest and respect to your question without being redundant I have a more in depth analysis of the Discussion for your pleasure which includes many Constitutional scholars.
Je vous en prie n’y a pas de quoi

Comment 6
@Pete Well, appreciate that lengthy consideration. I know it takes time, and time is precious.
Now, in Discussion the semi-agreeable sorta.. Maybe.. We’re not sure item which is contrast:
Which Book, if it was a book would the Founders be more pleased to represent?
England’s Sir William Blackstone Justice of the Court of King’s Bench : writing on
Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the Fourth – Chapter the Fifth : Of Offences Against the Law of Nations
Emerich de Vattel -Swiss philosopher, diplomat, legal expert, author : The Law of Nations” (1758 Translate original French) noted to be influencer of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton
Lets see, at the TIME we had just gained our Independence with a very bloody war against England, and if my memory serves me correctly with gratitude towards the French Navy which blocked Cornwallis’s escape Yorktown 1781.
The U.S. Constitution ratification 1789
That’s like a far stretch pretty unlikely.
Certainly would notice my innitial word
[ The Law of Nations” (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source “Law of Nations” is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular – against piracies and felonies on high seas).] [Noted with] rather then the word [against]
I do apologize for my incorrect placement also for it reads [ To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas;
To establish Post Offices and post roads
To promote science
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization and uniform Laws
To coin Money
To declare War
To define and punish Offences against the Law of Nations
Etc Etc Etc
I mean I mixed the list up certainly to advocate a point. The importance of each on the list widely varies from the next, and so we can’t necessarily say as it correctly reads
[To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;].. Are meant to be birds connected together any more than War and The POST OFFICE or Science.
Of course in your argument the word “of” is missing, and the author is aligned with the enemy of the Revolution England.
In my argument there isn’t a single word missing, we have a friendly ally in French, and a well documented history of affinity with very notable U.S. Founders.
I think my evidence as assumptions still stand more clear in my heart, and the argument and evidence you’ve brought to show has not changed my mind respectfully.
Comment 7
@Lupin [And yet, naive, ill-educated, gullible folks like CJR somehow think they’ve chanced onto something new!]
Actually it would be quite old , you are right however about it not being new.
@ Pete [ Just because you say, “Well, it coulda been this way. It woulda been this way if I’d been there. It shoulda been this way, because this is what I think the Founders woulda wanted,” none of that makes it so] DITO
Of course I always turn what people say about me or to me and see if their own argument applies to them. Of course it usually does.
So, when I swear, and cuss, and disparage someone I go see how it holds up in the mirror saying it. LOL!
The key 🔑 to Vattel is not to claim exact implications , but rather attribute influence. There ya go.
As I believe the Discussion started when I brought up Vattel, I was being lectured about reading history more and being educated by a lot of smart people. Apparently I went too far back for a degree of comfort.
@Pete [The birther goes out and searches diligently to see what few strands of straw he can find to beat against the granite rock of history,..]
The GRANITE ROCK of History as it pertains to the USA is of 43 Presidents everyone has been a (Citizen) at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, or a “natural born Citizen” (ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) according to Wikipedia. .accept Obama.
Recently, as my latest Post at the Blog related Arthur was found to be only a Citizen due to his father’s naturalization after Aurther’s 14th birthday. He was not re-elected, nor did he squire the Office without an assasination of President Garfield.
This makes Obama the sole elected Office of the President holder elected in violation of the traditions of U.S. History in the specifically outlined manner as criteria.
Now, what I will give you is I am a MUDDY Rucking Goldless Loser in many respects. I have nothing but mud on my bucket. That’s true. I havent won anything by the important Standards anyone here would really respect.
What I have WON is remarkable to me and more precious then the Gold and Pearl of Ophir; the fact I’m even around to convey it really is just as flabberghasting!
You all know I did 3018 days in Prison. You may not know 4.5 Of those years was in solitary isolation maximum security for standing up for and with the Native American’s Civil Rights to worship their God in appearance according to their Religion.
They had been kept in Solitary Confinement, some over a Decade! 😢
I’ve often questioned “WHY” God would want me to plead “guilty” at first, but then just 3 days later Motion to Withdraw my guilty plea.
I know without a shadow of a doubt if I had fought the charges they would have crumbeled in a Public Trial. Religion has a BIG PART in Freedom of Speech. A central role.
Looking back if I asked myself a question of how you get in to a Prison without being part of the guilty my path was perfect.
Now why would anyone want to go to Prison?
Well, I didn’t know why God wanted me to go either. I had no juvenile or adult previous Criminal Record.
I appealed if course, and it was solely upon the LDS Bishop’s intrepation of Rule 11 that he denide the Motion I had to Appeal. I did that and also Appealed Discovery not being allowed the videotape of the whole thing to make Public. It was had by the Prosecutor and witnessed by the LDS Bishop/Federal District Court Judge.
Don’t expect you guys to know anything about that As you haven’t purchased my book Taking A Stand.
Anyway, the Court hid behind the LDS Church Presidencies Copyright of the Videotape. The evidense used at against me denide.
I was told I’d have To take the LDS Presidency to Court in a separate case to obtain it. I did… Clear to the SCOTUS.
TOOK quite a few years to do that. SCOTUS interestingly enough wrote me a letter after they Denied Cert. Said, we recognise your Case, but not enough people suffer not getting their evidence to take it up.
Meantime, I’d sued for Relief of Cruel and Unusual punishment on the basis of Not cutting my hair as a assist to the Native Americans. I didn’t use religion, but a discrimination of Gender defense. We won!
Amazing Day! To see those men walk out of Solitary Confinement after decades into General Population. Was I on an errand from God?
I do recall a humble prayer to God if there was anything I could do for my fellow man that no one else could, I would do it.
Be careful for what you pray huh? 😉
What else was given to me that was so precious and valuable? What else have I WON?
I cannot imagine if I had been afforded every Constitutional CIVIL Right guaranteed in our U.S. Constitution ever doing 8+ years .
If I had NOT DONE 8 years , would there be a BI-Partisan Federal Court Record by a U.S. Presidential Candidate in the SCOTUS?
I can attest there would not be, nor would this conversion or discussion be happening.
It was ONLY through the PROFOUND LOSS that I came to WIN such a devotion, love, and Respect for the U.S. Constitution.
As I am the only Presidential Candidate with a specific Federal Court Record against Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama with great mentions of Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal within, there wouldn’t be a non-racial claim or a stain free Claim by anyone with standing.
I find offensive the claims of Principle to be denigrated to Racism, or Bigotry. They do not serve the True Record . . my Cases are very much considered as part of the Record.
No we haven’t WON a CASE. In that light it’s pretty dark indeed. It’s really pointless to say otherwise at this time other than Doc, I think you won the bet.🏁
What I have WON is not truly understood by you Gentleman , I consider you as American Friends.
Side note @REALITYCHECK I really like the intro to your Radio show. The American song that plays is cool.
There are many Records kept by God. It’s understood by Christians I know that it is out of the Books that men shall be Judged.
When you think about ALL the Civilizations known to man, … Past & Present and you think of the Records of each civilization being their own history. That is Cannon.
Out of all that’s been written their are some Records esteemed much higher than others. Some are lost., some just forgotten.. Some kept up.. Some given as Witnesses.
This is all the Bible is.. A Record of the Jews. Falling away..being brought back in a Restoration. It’s a repeated story, one in which we to are living.
Good Day

Comment 8
@Rickey [ Yet no Democratic candidate argued that his father’s lack of citizenship made Obama ineligible, and in fact no Republican candidate made that claim, either.]
You qualify those who object to the R’s or D’s and seem to exclude Independents. This is certainly dismissive of Independents that now out number both.
Judy v. McCain included an EMERGENCY MOTION near the end of the Docket that submitted Berg v Obama SCOTUS Case. I was a I – Presidential Candidate at the time.
This birds been flying 6.5 years without a rest.. Lol.. Whew!
@Keith I certainly did not mean to say the Colonist were radically set to dispose of EVERYTHING English, including language or the few decencies the English may have picked up on in The Ten Commandments forming a common good. (smile)
That’s taking my suggestion and a sailing out on a limb for sure. Lol
Balance is Key GENTLEMAN.. and flailing about in extremist unbalanced curriculum is not my style, or tantamount to my suggestions with Pete in contrasting two Printed works. One he suggested and one I suggested, which is on record from multiple sources as having “influence” on the Founders as a great assistance. Noted with Vattell I brought up.
I’m sure Blackstone’s work did also as well the 10 Commandments and The Holy Bible which of course does not directly infer any particular religion.
I believe Vattell did write exactly what I inferred he wrote. It seems the opposite is the nature of Pete’s argument.
@Doc I noticed on the Wiki Entry of Arthur they have his father as a U.S. Citizen and not a foreigner. This then places Obama alone.
It really was my extended research on Arthur that lent the 2008 revelation that popped up his father had not naturalized. I would hardly call a recent discovery precedent for Obama. Re: my latest Blog entry
Truly, according to U.S. History Obama is the only one without credentials under the Conditional Authority of “Citizen at the Time of the Adoption of the U.S. Constitution (the same as Representatives and Senators qualification ) and “natural born Citizen” ie Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents after.
The 8 attempts to change “Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents” to other conditions by Congress since 2003 are strong evidence towards legal reason substantiating this parameter for [natural born Citizen].
The failure of all 8 would be considered a Continued Legislative Mandate for the Judicial Branch to uphold as Constitutional.
Of course the [two citizen Parents] cannot be under estimated in current all be it non binding U.S. Resolution 511 As a remarkable as well modern consideration of Legislation many here fail to include OBAMA himself as a U.S. Senator co- sponsored.
This indicates Obama himself would and did outlaw himself with one U.S. Citizen Parent from the Office of the President in the qualification of [natural born Citizen] under its conditions and justifications excluding “place” in particular circumstances.
@ Doc [ Your hopeless ] I don’t believe so Doc , I tell you I have lots of Hope. But I may indeed be hopeless to avoiding the Facts I bring to the table. I see no reason to abandon them . THEY are FACTS.

Comment 9 
Great Example here of Law depicting [Citizen] not [ natural born Citizen] as lawful intrpretation.
The following shall be nationals and [citizens] of the United States at birth: … outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, … 477, title III, ch. … L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat.
8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth …
Cornell University
It’s a Congress Act ALIENS & NATIONALS which depicts a lawful naturalization a-h none of which include [born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents]
Because [ natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents – there was no need to naturalize. It was a given. It was clearly understood. It was stable. It was common knowledge.
It’s remarkable that the reverse has happened.
When the undefined, but understood , becomes that which is said to be ridiculous or insubstantial in court.
Great Example comes to mind for clarity of what I’m saying. In the movie A FEW GOOD MEN Tom Cruise playing Lt. McCaffee question a Infantryman –
Q.”Can you tell me what page the directions are in the Marine Manual to the Mass Hall? ”
“A.”ummm there isn’t one.”
Q. ” YOU mean you have never had a meal?”
A. “No, I’ve eaten every meal.”
Q. ” How did you know where the Mass Hall was if it’s not in the Manuel?”
A. ” GUESS I just followed my nose..followed the Crowd.”
Code Red not found in the Manuel is like ( [ natural born Citizen – born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) or finding the Chow Hall.
Minor v. Happerset simple stated the obvious in saying it was never doubted that those born in the Country to Citizen Parents were themselves natural born citizens.

Comment 10
The distinction of separate terms occurs in one paragraph.
[ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United Stated , at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;]
We notice it was impossible for a single person to be [natural born Citizen] Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents because the United States didnt exist until the LAW of Authority in Constitution was signed as Supreme Law.
This made all those at the time [Citizens] of a New Nation.
Congress was given naturalization powers to adopt Citizens.
Anyone born of Citizens in the U.S were [natural born Citizens] under constant jurisdiction of the same law
The term [natural born Citizen] was considered a WALL to foreigners. .and aliens and nationals adopted as Citizens by naturalization or any process of Government are considered Foreigners to that Office of President.
It’s the only thing that preserves the intent of national security, and gives reason the same qualification was not intended for Representatives and Senators.
The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence.
(Chief Justice) John Jay to (Pres) George Washington
[Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.]
Aliens and Nationals are considered adopted by some naturalization process including declarative Congressional Act or Title X a-h which is necessary for entitlement justification.
Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents is not listed in TITLE X but we get entitlements. .because it was never doubted.
Sadly, the twisting and contortions have failed the most basic fundamental truths on some lawyers profound new truth that of its not listed it isn’t. That’s just poppy cock reasoning and voids deductive reasoning we are all very capable of.

Comment 11
@arthur Perhaps you could point out the case of 2 Presidential Candidates, one stating damages to his Campaign with Standing that has occured in the U.S. Supreme Court over the specific [ natural born Citizen] clause unique to the qualification of the Office of President in the U.S. Constitution?
Actually Heard by SCOTUS in History?
If you can’t we must assume it’s pretty recent the shift took place as consideration.
Judy v. Obama 14-9396 gave us as close of an encounter as we have had.
By your standard there should be no hurdle of the Political Doctrine Question or Ripeness Doctrine
Can you recall such a time in History that an all OUT assault on the prohibition of Constitution construction took place?
Comment 12
@Soduko [The courts have consistently held there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born or naturalized. There is no third category of a citizen at birth, by virtue of being born in the US, who is not a natural born citizen.]
Certainly those born in the U.S. qualifying as anchor babies under the NATURALIZED Clause of the 14th amendment would be also understood As naturalized by an Act of Congress.
No one part of the Constitution can void another. Both terms Respected.
The 14thAMEND did not void a qualification for President in Art 2, Sect 1, C-5.


CRJ October 27, 2015 at 1:19 am  (Quote) # 
In question of how did President Washington fullfill 14 Year RESIDENCY requirement?
Noticing the difference between being a [Citizen] for 14 years verses a [Resident] for 14 years is verily clear to me.
The Residency requirement did not require that to be as a Citizen, but a Resident.
One could fullfill the “14 Year Residency” by being a [R]esident in the Geography prior to bring a Citizen at the Adoption of the Constitution and the beginning of the United States.
That is why the Constitution does NOT say and [14 years a Citizen of the United States] for the Office of President.
Now if you Notice this is very different from the Representative Requirements which in fact do say :
[seven Years a Citizen of the United States]
and also see U.S Senator
[nine Years a Citizen of the United States]
Virginia actually was the 10th State to come into the the Union, but did so in 1788 a Year after 1787 signing of the COTUS.
So again, very clearly, the Office the President did not require a [14 year prior Citizenship] but clearly states [14 years a Resident within the United States]
And The first [Citizen] (s) were Adopted at the signing of the Constitution. We all agree Obama was not there.
[Citizen] was the requirement, because they ALL KNEW, (what many here have failed to either understand, or just blantantly want to stay or be ignorant about), there was no [ natural born Citizens]
Natural born Citizen required Birth in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.
Those first generation Adopted U.S. Citizens had children who were the [natural born Citizens] qualified for the Office of President.
It’s the [Supreme Law of the Land] , not racist. It’s WE THE PEOPLE’S [w]ill by Legislative Mandate, not a wipple of any particular minority.

Comment 14
@Gorfan [W]as it ratified by the Particular State?
There have been Congress People in the U.S. Congress that have proposed 8 times to change the [natural born Citizen] clause understanding [born in the U.S to Citizen Parents] to something else. They all failed to pass.
The point being just because it’s proposed certainly does not mean ratified. Legislation has been proposed in AZ that would make what Obama did a little less likely to occur. The Gov. Vetoed it.
@Lupin & @Ron Even if Trumps mother was “dual” he was born to U.S. Citizens this making him a [natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. Obama’s father was not a dual citizen he was Kenyan and didn’t even try to be immigrate or naturalize. We should respect Obama’s father’s heritage equally in consideration Obama inherited such Kenyan Citizenship from his father.
To not RESPECT Obama’s father equally is rather racist in my opinion.
@Magic M Thank you for your support in stating that. Indeed.

Campaign Committee to elect Cody Robert Judy U.S. President in 2016.
Web Site 

Cody's Record is one you can Trust as one in the public service, and one that has served our Nation and will serve our Nation well in the Office of the President. The nucleus of our Constitution that may just be the collaboration or difference between the Truth and the Lie you will have a choice in voting for.

Help Support Cody Robert Judy's Campaign for President Cody is doing what not even Mr Trump or any other Republican Candidate for President can do. Remember - Principle over Party!

Help Support Cody Robert Judy's Campaign for President Cody is doing what not even Mr Trump or any other Republican Candidate for President can do. Remember - Principle over Party!

Cody Robert Judy's book :

Every dollar counts towards a Campaign willing to take a stand for your individual Civil Rights and having a President like Cody Robert Judy, you can be sure that your Rights are going to be stood up for because he's the one with a Record in Court to prove that actions speak louder than words. Helping him out today is going to help you out Tomorrow.

1) Judy v. McCain Las Vegas, Nevada 2008 U.S. Fed. 2)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Ballot Challenge Executive Court 3)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Superior Court 4)New Hampshire State Supreme Court 5)Judy v. Obama Georgia Ballot Challenge Executive Court 6)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Superior Court 7)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Supreme Court 8)Judy v. Obama Ballot Challenges United States Supreme Court 12-5276 9)Judy v. Obama Utah U.S. Fed Court 10)Judy v. Obama Utah Division Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver, Colorado) 11.) Judy v. Obama U.S. Supreme Court 14-9396

Other Courts
12-10th Amendment Trial New York witness in the CIA Columbia Obama Sedition and Treason Trial
13-Amicus Curiae Filed in Berg v. Obama 2008
14-Amicus Curiae Filed in Keyes v. Obama Judge Carter case
15-Amicus Curiae Filed in Military Court if Lt. Terry Lakin

The proceeding referenced Court actions have been within the three Presidential Races 2008, 2012, and 2016.

Cody Robert Judy - U.S. President 2016
The 2016 Cody Robert Judy Campaign for U.S. President

CAMPAIGN NEWS FLASH - Please visit a couple more of our Campaign Web Pages that are up, remodeled, and going. First the "Bio of Cody" page is up and also the "NEWS FLASH" page is up which details a news flash about Judy v. Obama 14-9396 in the United States Supreme Court.

INSPIRING - I believe in You